Yes, if women have readily available legal opportunity to end an unwanted potential motherhood, men should have readily available legal opportunity to end unwanted potential fatherhood. Men who care about their partners will use proper protection. Those that don’t aren’t good father material and encouraging a woman to continue a pregnancy from such a man is a societal wrong. More to the point if the “mother” insists on continuing the pregnancy knowing full well the “father” wants nothing to do with being a parent, yes it is her problem. It wasn’t forced on her. She volunteered and should fully suffer the consequences of stupidity. As to the issue of bare backing, Continually going bareback will also increase the chances that a man will contract something fatal and remove himself and all his equally stupid partners from the gene pool.
Men should have the right to ‘abort’ responsibility for an unborn child, Swedish political group say
Why not? There is nothing wrong with a well-run orphanage or boarding schools. Some of the best people I know spent most of their childhood in boarding school.
Great we’ve come full circle to men not having any reasons to avoid impregnating women.
Why is this good policy or desirable? I’m not seeing a convincing reason to accept this burden as a taxpayer.
What STD removes someone from the gene pool? I’ve never heard of such a thing. With every STD they can go on spreading their genes.
Nonsense, the greatest reason for men not to impregnate a woman has always been there: nobody should have children unless they want them and are capable of taking care of them. Most intelligent people should be able internalize this concept if they receive decent education about health and finances. For those that can’t societal pressure is probably the best way to influence behavior. You as a taxpayer should not accept the burden of unsupportable children. Individuals who create such problems should be pariahs and treated accordingly. However ultimately the decision about continuing a pregnancy is in the hands of the pregnant woman and if she is stupid enough to inflect a bad idea pregnancy on the rest of us, she deserves whatever misery results.
Oh and HIV is an STD that without the anti-viral drugs removes people from the gene pool fast. Many STDs if untreated can cause sterility also.
I would like to point out the not small issues that can crop up during pregnancy that can permanently screw up the woman’s continued health [and even kill her] with carrying to term … over 2 pregnancies I ended up diabetic, lost a fair amount of kidney function [and spent time in failure which we did manage to resolve, but it did in fact screw up my renal function permanently] and I did almost die twice [and eventually resulted in requiring a tubal ligation as permanent birth control]
Honestly? I wouldn’t have made my worse enemy deal with that crap and I seriously hate her. Forcing women to risk physical damage is an obscenity, telling them ‘no abortion, you will carry and put up for adoption’ is not an option. Carrying a child needs to be a positive and desired outcome.
But it’s not her misery solely, it’s the kid too. The desire to see the child punished by with-holding monetary support because the mother’s refused to get an abortion is, to me, vindictive, cruel, irrational, and just plain stupid.
That’s where the entire men’s rights not to support argument falls apart. The support is for the child and isn’t a tool to be used against the woman who refused to get an abortion that the man wanted her to.
Ok so flat dollar your amount then, it should still not be tied to a personal income, unless it’s punitive
In most cases it being tied to income is to the benifit of the person paying child support as the actual cost would be beyond thier means. It’s capped at what the can realisticly afford.
Having an upper limit is a reasonable possition. I don’t really care if wealthy people end up paying more than what is actually nessesary though so see no need to advocate for a change.
So you think the best method is one that has proven to be ineffective?
It’s not like deadbeat parents are looked on highly as it is.
If the social standard is men bare no responsibility for children they did not want, we wouldn’t be able to apply social pressure as there would be no legal reason to even identify who the are.
As long as the mother is the one who determines how the money is spent, it is a benefit to her.
Actually it can be quite effective. In my own community illegitimate children are nonexistent because the punishment is complete exclusion.
Every single parent I’ve known gets by without a nanny.
Were you forced into this situation by a woman who refused to abort? Or did you dump the woman after marriage & a few years of fatherhood?
Look on the bright side! At least you are not obligated to give the child more than your money. Shared custody or even visitation cannot be forced on any parent.
That’s not the point. The point is that for young children, at least, the custodial parent is legally obligated to ensure appropriate supervision 24/7. That parent can be thrown in prison if they do not do so. This is a duty they have no option to discharge-- if they are not there, they are required to arrange care, every second of every day until the child is legally able to care for themselves.
So if we are talking about making things fair, the non-custodial parent should account for their half of that 24/7 supervision, right? If we are splitting the expenses right down in half, why wouldn’t we split the work as well? And by definition, the non-custodial parent isn’t providing that directly. So it only makes sense for them to compensate the person who is providing that.
Which is all part and parcel of the same problem.
If kids need money, fine. Where does it come from when the dad is a dead beat?
The state. No job, the state. But tieing it to income is punitive in the case of middle class or higher folks.
I buy my kids stuff. Clothes, food, roof over their head. Pay for all extra curricular activities. In fact, I pay for more stuff than my ex that I pay child support to. Why? Because I love my kids. The bottom line is that the courts don’t realize that in today’s economy where it almost necessitates both parents working that to have 25-30% of a persons income given to the other parent provides a burden on the person paying (and they still have to be a parent.
People who bitch and moan about having to take care of their kids?
Well, let’s just say that I form an opinion about those people. Even if you don’t have a goddam kid yet, complaining about how you MIGHT have to take care of your goddam kid leads me to form an opinion about you.
The complaint that women can decide to have an abortion, but you can’t legally force a woman to have an abortion is horrific. If women couldn’t get abortions would you be happy? No you wouldn’t be happy. You don’t want to pay child support for a child you don’t want? Fine. Don’t have a child. There are plenty of ways to not have a child. But if you do create a child even though you don’t want to, you still have a legal obligation to take care of your goddam kid, even if you don’t want a goddam kid. Because the only other option is for me to take care of your goddam kid.
We allow abortion. You’re a man. You can’t have an abortion! Wah! Life isn’t fair!
You know what’s even more unfair? Abandoning your fucking kid and moving to Florida. Having a kid that you didn’t want ruined your life? Welcome to the human race. Your need to not take care of your kid is outweighed by the need of child to be cared for. You can either live in society as a human being, or not. If you’re the kind of man who would abandon your child if you could, maybe you should let the people around you know about that. Like, you meet a woman, and before you become physically intimate, look deeply into her eyes and tell her, “Baby, if you get pregnant I would abandon the baby in a hot second. Now let me stick my cock in you.”
Who pays child support in California if the Dad moves to Florida?
Exactly …
I do love the snide personal (undertones) of an attack though
No one said anything like that, but you sure make an ass of yourself when you assume.
That would only be fair in situation where BOTH parents consented to the birth of the child, not just the mother.
You did consent, you irrevocably consented when you put sperm in the child’s mother.